The overwhelming choice of evangelicals

[AUFAN78 3,894]

On 11/25/2016 at 9:56 PM, TexasTiger said:

Thinking merely quoting Trump is a hyper partisan attack must be the new derangement of the right wing.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking. A handful of those on the right did that very thing with Obama over the last few years and were labeled as having ODS. Surely you see the hypocrisy with similar Trump criticism?

As I did with Homes, I challenge you to go back and revisit a few of those threads. Some, not all, of the comparisons will be obvious or should be.

Until that time, a few will call it as it appears, straight up butthurt TDS. Not having a dog in the fight I see the motivation, but will label it as such until proven otherwise. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

On 11/26/2016 at 2:20 PM, homersapien said:

By all means.  Bring it on.  If you are making comparisons, I insist.

Try to find something I said that tops "Obama thinks he owns the white house".  

I stated you'd not I'd. I have seen them. No need for me to revisit.

And stop with the strawman example. Instead focus on the body of work.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Here's the problem with that line of thinking. A handful of those on the right did that very thing with Obama over the last few years and were labeled as having ODS. Surely you see the hypocrisy with similar Trump criticism?

As I did with Homes, I challenge you to go back and revisit a few of those threads. Some, not all, of the comparisons will be obvious or should be.

Until that time, a few will call it as it appears, straight up butthurt TDS. Not having a dog in the fight I see the motivation, but will label it as such until proven otherwise. 

What you're missing here is the point of Trump's quote wasn't to critique Trump. This side of him was known to the American electorate and it wasn't a hurdle he couldn't overcome. As evidenced by the OP and title, my question is about what evangelicals stand for these days, because that has certainly changed dramatically. Many folks don't care about Trump's behavior, but in years past, evangelicals would not have supported him. That's an interesting change. But I can't even raise that issue without Trumpbots getting all protective and defensive about Trump. You say you're not a supporter, but you went to the same place.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

What you're missing here is the point of Trump's quote wasn't to critique Trump. This side of him was known to the American electorate and it wasn't a hurdle he couldn't overcome. As evidenced by the OP and title, my question is about what evangelicals stand for these days, because that has certainly changed dramatically. Many folks don't care about Trump's behavior, but in years past, evangelicals would not have supported him. That's an interesting change. But I can't even raise that issue without Trumpbots getting all protective and defensive about Trump. You say you're not a supporter, but you went to the same place.

I get your point, it's valid. I think you are missing mine. Again, if you'll revist past threads decrying ODS a common theme will appear.

[Grumps 3,704]

I am an evangelical Christian who held his nose and voted for Trump. I think he may be the 2nd worst candidate for POTUS in my lifetime. Fortunately for him, he was running against the worst candidate of my lifetime. Evangelical Christians have a real problem with candidates saying that deep seated social and religious beliefs need to change in this country. Candidates who want the vote of evangelical Christians should refrain from statements like that or explain them much better. I don't see how the Trump quote in your OP is relevant to evangelicals.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

16 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I am an evangelical Christian who held his nose and voted for Trump. I think he may be the 2nd worst candidate for POTUS in my lifetime. Fortunately for him, he was running against the worst candidate of my lifetime. Evangelical Christians have a real problem with candidates saying that deep seated social and religious beliefs need to change in this country. Candidates who want the vote of evangelical Christians should refrain from statements like that or explain them much better. I don't see how the Trump quote in your OP is relevant to evangelicals.

You honestly don't ? What if a Dem had said it?

[TexasTiger 12,828]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

I get your point, it's valid. I think you are missing mine. Again, if you'll revist past threads decrying ODS a common theme will appear.

There's ranting irrationally and there are valid critiques and questions of any political figure. Since Trump breaks the mold, he'll have more unprecedented moments open to questioning. His almost daily Tweets assure that. His supporters will complain and call most critiques unfair. This allows them to dismiss criticism. Folks will disagree on where the line is.

[Grumps 3,704]

37 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You honestly don't ? What if a Dem had said it?

I did not click on the Buzzfeed link, so I don't know if it is a video or not. I do not know the context of how he said it. Yes, it seems pretty sick. It also may be a joke. I did not feel threatened by it. If a dem said it then it would seem pretty sick, and it might also be a joke. I doubt I'd feel threatened by it. I feel more threatened by a candidate who misremembers being under sniper fire. Either way, I can see why you find the quote offensive. I still don't see how that quote should be a deal-breaker for evangelicals.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

I did not click on the Buzzfeed link, so I don't know if it is a video or not. I do not know the context of how he said it. Yes, it seems pretty sick. It also may be a joke. I did not feel threatened by it. If a dem said it then it would seem pretty sick, and it might also be a joke. I doubt I'd feel threatened by it. I feel more threatened by a candidate who misremembers being under sniper fire. Either way, I can see why you find the quote offensive. I still don't see how that quote should be a deal-breaker for evangelicals.

Do you agree I previous years much of Trumps behavior would have been deemed disqualifying by evangelicals?

[Grumps 3,704]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Do you agree I previous years much of Trumps behavior would have been deemed disqualifying by evangelicals?

Yes. I think that Trump's behavior would have been deemed disqualifying by evangelicals THIS year if there were a viable option. I am not sure that you understand just how bad a candidate that people like me found Mrs. Clinton to be.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

5 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Yes. I think that Trump's behavior would have been deemed disqualifying by evangelicals THIS year if there were a viable option. I am not sure that you understand just how bad a candidate that people like me found Mrs. Clinton to be.

I understand that's the case, but I don't see how Trump is deemed acceptable.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

15 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There's ranting irrationally and there are valid critiques and questions of any political figure. Since Trump breaks the mold, he'll have more unprecedented moments open to questioning. His almost daily Tweets assure that. His supporters will complain and call most critiques unfair. This allows them to dismiss criticism. Folks will disagree on where the line is.

Totally agree.

[Grumps 3,704]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I understand that's the case, but I don't see how Trump is deemed acceptable.

Once again, I don't find him to be acceptable, just less unacceptable than Mrs. Clinton.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

3 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Once again, I don't find him to be acceptable, just less unacceptable than Mrs. Clinton.

I guess I would see a vote for someone as finding him at least minimally acceptable-- I wouldn't vote for someone I found unacceptable.

[homersapien 11,357]

6 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I stated you'd not I'd. I have seen them. No need for me to revisit.

And stop with example. Instead focus on the body of work.

Yeah, that's what I thought: "No need to re-visit".  

I don't get the last sentence.  What's the "strawman argument"?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

15 hours ago, Grumps said:

Once again, I don't find him to be acceptable, just less unacceptable than Mrs. Clinton.

It is sad and, somewhat amusing watching you attempt to justify an alliance with an agent of evil over another agent of evil and then, somehow relate that to your religious beliefs based on Christ.

IMHO, inviting politics into Christianity amounts to replacing Christ with Satan.  Imagine the joy of Satan watching Christians corrupt the love of Christ with partisan political ideology.  Imagine Satan's glee watching Christians replace faith in Christ with faith in politics and Donald Trump.

Nothing to me seems more hypocritical and ignorant than, believing that a vote for Clinton or Trump could/should be motivated by, related to, justified by the love of Christ.  The political implications are meaningless.  The implications of corruption, distortion, destruction of Christianity are alarming.

[homersapien 11,357]

20 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I stated you'd not I'd. I have seen them. No need for me to revisit.

And stop with the strawman example. Instead focus on the body of work.

It's not a "strawman" example. It's a perfect example to illustrate ODS.  One could even say classic.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

It is sad and, somewhat amusing watching you attempt to justify an alliance with an agent of evil over another agent of evil and then, somehow relate that to your religious beliefs based on Christ.

IMHO, inviting politics into Christianity amounts to replacing Christ with Satan.  Imagine the joy of Satan watching Christians corrupt the love of Christ with partisan political ideology.  Imagine Satan's glee watching Christians replace faith in Christ with faith in politics and Donald Trump.

Nothing to me seems more hypocritical and ignorant than, believing that a vote for Clinton or Trump could/should be motivated by, related to, justified by the love of Christ.  The political implications are meaningless.  The implications of corruption, distortion, destruction of Christianity are alarming.

I completely agree with almost everything you just said except that I am not sure where I tried to justify an alliance with Trump or with Satan. I have said on this forum that I don't think that Christ is concerned with who won the election. I think Christ is concerned about the condition of our hearts. I have said on this forum that some people will sin by voting for Trump, others by voting for Clinton, and others by voting at all. I didn't vote for Trump because of my Christian beliefs. I don't have faith in Trump.

Would you mind pointing out my stated allegiance to Trump or to Satan? Would you mind pointing out where I said that Christian should vote for Trump or for Mrs. Clinton? I sincerely think that you are reading things into my posts that are not there, but if I said it then I'd love to correct my mistakes. You did make a great lecture.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

34 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I completely agree with almost everything you just said except that I am not sure where I tried to justify an alliance with Trump or with Satan. I have said on this forum that I don't think that Christ is concerned with who won the election. I think Christ is concerned about the condition of our hearts. I have said on this forum that some people will sin by voting for Trump, others by voting for Clinton, and others by voting at all. I didn't vote for Trump because of my Christian beliefs. I don't have faith in Trump.

Would you mind pointing out my stated allegiance to Trump or to Satan? Would you mind pointing out where I said that Christian should vote for Trump or for Mrs. Clinton? I sincerely think that you are reading things into my posts that are not there, but if I said it then I'd love to correct my mistakes. You did make a great lecture.

I agree and, I apologize.  I was referring to:

" Yes. I think that Trump's behavior would have been deemed disqualifying by evangelicals THIS year if there were a viable option. I am not sure that you understand just how bad a candidate that people like me found Mrs. Clinton to be."

Obviously for anyone who voted for either, there was a viable option.  I agree that you did not indicate that option being based on religion.  However, given the subject of this thread, I hope you understand why I made that assumption.  Again, sorry about that.

[TheBlueVue 177]

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

The implications of corruption, distortion, destruction of Christianity are alarming.

Some actually believe with certainty that a  Clinton Presidency would accelerate the onset of these implications much more aggressively than a Trump Presidency would. She is a career politician whose career has been literally littered with corruption for its duration. She believes in abortion on demand up until the day before delivery and, she is on record saying Christians were going to have to change some of their basic beliefs so; I can easily see why evangelicals voted against Clinton.

[bigbird 60,460]

I'm not sure it was an election where one could claim any vote was based in morality. Anyway we look at it, either Clinton or Trump were going to win. In the end, there was absolutely no other choice. So people were given the choice of two terrible people. Neither ideally represented evangelicals.  Many evangelicals I know voted for Trump not because of his platform or ideas but rather for the chance that he would nominated justices that were more inline with their beliefs. That is how they justified their vote for Trump.

[ArgoEagle 1,771]

1 hour ago, TheBlueVue said:

Some actually believe with certainty that a  Clinton Presidency would accelerate the onset of these implications much more aggressively than a Trump Presidency would. She is a career politician whose career has been literally littered with corruption for its duration. She believes in abortion on demand up until the day before delivery and, she is on record saying Christians were going to have to change some of their basic beliefs so; I can easily see why evangelicals voted against Clinton.

As Christians, my wife and I were seeking a candidate who was a professed Christian himself, so we supported Rubio from the start. When Rubio dropped out of the race, we both started supporting Trump not b/c of thinking he was the closest thing to a Christian, but b/c he was the lesser of the 2 evils we were going to be left with to choose for president of our country. I personally did not believe Obama had the best interest of our country in mind over the last 8 years, and did not want a continuation of the same, or worse, with Hillary. The Bible says "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's", which means sometimes there is a division which must be made between Christianity and government. Therefore, we chose to elect Trump for his political views on how to improve our country, and not his moral standards, which neither one can bolster as to being strong morally. We simply were left without a Christian candidate to vote for in the end.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 hours ago, bigbird said:

I'm not sure it was an election where one could claim any vote was based in morality. Anyway we look at it, either Clinton or Trump were going to win. In the end, there was absolutely no other choice. So people were given the choice of two terrible people. Neither ideally represented evangelicals.  Many evangelicals I know voted for Trump not because of his platform or ideas but rather for the chance that he would nominated justices that were more inline with their beliefs. That is how they justified their vote for Trump.

Here's the thing: If morality was really a concern of the Republican party electorate, Trump would have never made it out of the primary.  The fact that he did says more about the base and where they stand on how important morality is than anything else.  Same goes for the Dems and Hillary.

[bigbird 60,460]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

Here's the thing: If morality was really a concern of the Republican party electorate, Trump would have never made it out of the primary.  The fact that he did says more about the base and where they stand on how important morality is than anything else.

Completely agree.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, that's what I thought: "No need to re-visit".  

I don't get the last sentence.  What's the "strawman argument"?

That's not what I said. You conveniently edited out " for me" from your statement. Why should I revisit what you stated again when I've already done so? You however should revisit and if you choose to do so you'll see a similar theme.

During the Obama years many here complained about him, his policies, etc. Those folks were met with ODS, but Obama, etc.  So now that the shoe is on the other foot, when you complain, whine, etc., don't be surprised if you are met with TDS or butthurt. If you can't see it is comparable, I don't think I can help you.